Re: CA AB375

I cannot speak for the drafters of the bill, but I expect they were uninterested in using DNT headers.

 Aleecia

> On Jun 28, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Great news!
> 
> One thought: if a "verifiable request" to delete personal data, in order to minimise the administrative burden, can be via a "password-protected account" i.e. the consumer can be identified via an authentication string in a cookie, then why not an HTTP request containing a UID cookies  along with DNT:1. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com> 
> Sent: 28 June 2018 23:22
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> Subject: CA AB375 
> 
> Today, after a colorful legislative history, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The governor just signed it into law.  
> 
> I get no credit / blame for this one, but those reading the text will notice it looks familiar. No coincidence. Parts of DNT will live on in this legislation that covers 40 million people.
> 
> Unlike DNT, UI was not out of scope. Ah, I won’t spoil it, I’ll let you read the bill [1] yourselves. 
> 
> The law does not come into force until 2020. There will undoubtedly be a great deal of interest in “clean up” legislation. 
> 
> On Monday I join the faculty at Carnegie Mellon based at the Silicon Valley campus.
> 
> Be seeing you,
> 
>  Aleecia
> 
> [1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 23:04:03 UTC